Turning around an agency under scrutiny: The challenges facing BOP leadership

The Federal Bureau of Prisons rarely benefits from good timing. Just as new leadership settles in for their first full year in office and promises reform, oversight agencies issue reports that underscore how deep and persistent the Bureau’s problems remain. That reality became especially clear when the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General released its latest report on top management challenges, followed almost immediately by a critical Government Accountability Office assessment of the Bureau’s handling of recidivism reduction under the First Step Act.

Together, the reports offer a sobering backdrop for BOP Director William Marshall III and Deputy Director Josh Smith. They are inheriting not simply a troubled agency, but one that oversight bodies have described as being in a prolonged state of crisis.

Leadership change meets institutional reality

Leadership turnover has become a defining feature of the BOP. The removal of Director Colette Peters in early 2025 marked another abrupt shift at the top of an agency already struggling with consistency and trust. Peters entered the Bureau with a reform-oriented agenda, but the OIG’s repeated findings make clear how difficult it is for any director to impose change on an organization burdened by staffing shortages, crumbling infrastructure and entrenched internal resistance.

William Marshall III’s appointment was framed as a reset. Unlike his immediate predecessors, Marshall came from a smaller corrections system and arrived without the baggage of past federal leadership failures. Yet the OIG has emphasized that meaningful reform will require more than a change in tone or management style. The Bureau’s challenges are structural and long-standing, and they demand sustained attention from leadership, DOJ, the Office of Management and Budget and Congress.

Compounding that challenge is the reality that Marshall has not yet faced congressional testimony, even as lawmakers call for greater oversight of the BOP. In an agency under constant scrutiny, the absence of direct public accountability only heightens expectations and pressure.

Staffing shortages that undermine everything else

Both the OIG and GAO point to staffing as the foundational problem that touches nearly every aspect of BOP’s mission. Chronic vacancies among correctional officers, healthcare workers and program staff force the Bureau to rely on mandatory overtime and staff augmentation. As a result, employees hired to provide education, counseling or medical care are routinely reassigned to security posts.

The OIG has repeatedly warned that this practice degrades safety, erodes rehabilitative programming and accelerates burnout. GAO echoes this concern, noting that staffing shortages contribute directly to delays in risk and needs assessments, incomplete program delivery and poor data quality. For Marshall and Smith, addressing staffing is not simply about recruitment; it is about restoring the Bureau’s capacity to function as intended.

Data failures and the First Step Act

GAO’s most recent report zeroes in on one of the BOP’s most consequential responsibilities: implementing the First Step Act. Congress intended the law to reduce recidivism by requiring the BOP to assess risk, identify needs, and provide evidence-based programming that could earn incarcerated people time credits toward earlier release.

GAO found that the BOP has struggled to meet statutory deadlines for risk and needs assessments, citing technology problems, staffing gaps and inconsistent processes. Even more troubling, the Bureau lacks accurate data on program participation. Inconsistent recording practices and data entry errors mean the BOP cannot reliably determine whether it is offering enough programming or whether individuals are receiving credit for their efforts.

For leadership, this represents more than an administrative failure. It undermines the credibility of the First Step Act itself. When earned time credits are delayed or inconsistently applied, trust erodes among incarcerated people and staff alike, and Congress is left without reliable information to evaluate whether the law is working.

Programs in name, but not always in practice

The GAO report highlights a recurring problem also identified by the OIG: reforms that exist on paper but falter in execution. The BOP reports that it offers programs addressing all required criminogenic needs, yet GAO found that the Bureau cannot accurately measure participation or effectiveness.

Program review meetings, intended to guide individuals toward appropriate services, are often cursory. Some incarcerated people described meetings lasting only minutes, with little discussion of progress or future programming. This raises serious questions about whether individualized reentry planning is occurring in a meaningful way.

For Marshall and Smith, improving program integrity means more than expanding offerings. It requires reliable data systems, consistent staff training, and accountability mechanisms that ensure programs are delivered as designed.

Infrastructure and safety concerns

The OIG continues to document deteriorating infrastructure across the federal prison system. Aging facilities suffer from failing plumbing, outdated electrical systems and inadequate safety equipment. Deferred maintenance has grown into a multibillion-dollar backlog, forcing the Bureau to operate facilities that are increasingly unsafe for both staff and inmates.

Facility closures, such as those announced in recent years, reflect a recognition that some institutions are no longer viable. But closures also create ripple effects, including overcrowding at receiving facilities and reduced access to programs. Leadership must balance fiscal reality with operational risk, all while managing public and congressional scrutiny.

Culture, accountability and public trust

Perhaps the most difficult challenge identified by oversight bodies is cultural. The OIG has described an agency that is insular, resistant to change, and slow to implement recommendations. Years after recommendations are issued, many remain unresolved.

Smith’s appointment as deputy director represents a significant cultural departure. As someone with lived experience in the federal prison system, Smith’s presence challenges long-standing norms about who holds authority within the BOP. His role signals an openness to perspectives historically excluded from leadership, but it also places him in the middle of an institution wary of outsiders.

Restoring public trust will require visible progress on issues that have defined the BOP’s failures: staff misconduct, contraband, inadequate surveillance systems and inconsistent discipline. Both the OIG and GAO emphasize that leadership must move beyond reactive fixes and demonstrate sustained follow-through.

A test of leadership, not intentions

The convergence of OIG and GAO findings leaves little room for ambiguity. The challenges facing the Bureau of Prisons are well documented, deeply rooted and interrelated. New leadership brings opportunity, but it also inherits a backlog of unresolved failures that cannot be addressed through rhetoric alone.

For Marshall and Smith, success will be measured not by announcements or task forces, but by closed recommendations, improved data accuracy, stabilized staffing and demonstrable improvements in safety and reentry outcomes. The question is not whether they recognize the scale of the problem. It is whether the Bureau, with sustained external support and internal accountability, can finally break the cycle that has kept it on oversight agencies’ watch lists year after year.

Alan Ellis is the founding partner at the Law Offices of Alan Ellis.

Walt Pavlo is the founder of Prisonology.

Copyright © 2026 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.